Asking people to pay up front for a product they MIGHT receive just isn't a model that can apply to a wide commercial audience.
Actually I agree with you, Anti-Mike. Lots of Free Culture models work, but "fund-and-release" doesn't sit well with me. I don't think Jill Sobule used fund-and-release either; I think she was planning to make her album regardless, and came up with a nice incentive structure for funding.
In addition to what Mike wrote about setting reasonable prices and offering real value, I also think donations should fund artists regardless of whether the "target amount" is reached. Fund-and-release commodifies creative work too much. It expects artists to withhold their creative process unless they're paid first. That's not what real artists do; it's what manufacturers do.
The reason "Sita Sings the Blues" isn't on iTunes is because they won't distribute any movies without DRM. They were interested, but that was a deal breaker for me.
In addition to ignoring the cost of obscurity, free-haters also forget this:
"...free licensed works might make more on average, due to the elimination of middlemen and other friction....In other words...fat cats cost more than free riders." -- Terry Hancock (of Free Software magazine, who wrote that in a conversation on facebook)
If you and other creators want to shoot yourself in the feet, more power to you. It only helps my work. If I were really selfish, I'd advocate for copyright, just like our good friends the Big Media companies do. Good luck, "fellow filmmaker" who apparently is doing so poorly it needs to stay anonymous.
I appreciate your concern, Anonymous Coward. I've made far more money sharing "Sita" than I would have gotten through conventional distribution and locking up the work under copyright. Still, you seem quite angry (enough to get numbers wrong not once but twice) that I haven't made ENOUGH. According to you, I deserve MORE! Luckily, you can do something about that: send me money. Thousands of others have. It's far more effective than whining anonymously on Techdirt. Of course if your point is that "this can never work because people are assholes," then I'll have to doubt the sincerity of your concern for me, or that you are in any way a "fellow".
Cameras are copy machines; photographs are copies; photographers are copy machine operators. All photography copyrights are copyfraud. Certainly some photographers are much much more highly skilled than others; doesn't change the fact that the camera is a copy machine. The highly skilled operators should be able to charge more for their services, and be in greater demand.
Any government funding should be on the condition that the results are publicly owned. Given the state of current IP law, where powerful corporations and individuals can remove knowledge from the Public Domain, some kind of "copyleft" equivalent is needed for patents, to ensure the work remains share-able.
If only English had distinctions between libre and gratuit, these conversations would be much easier. "Free" really confuses people. But yeah, even with the clumsy word "free" we can distinguish between "free labor" and "free content."
But it looks like the British Stealth Media Group has chipped in up to 1 million euros for worldwide distribution rights
Can someone clarify what that means in this case? If worldwide distribution rights have been sold, how will the result be libre? "Distribution rights" means the right to sue anyone who distributes a work without the holder's permission.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: GPL
On the post: Public Enemy Not Selling Well Enough On Sellaband: What Went Wrong?
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I agree with you, Anti-Mike. Lots of Free Culture models work, but "fund-and-release" doesn't sit well with me. I don't think Jill Sobule used fund-and-release either; I think she was planning to make her album regardless, and came up with a nice incentive structure for funding.
In addition to what Mike wrote about setting reasonable prices and offering real value, I also think donations should fund artists regardless of whether the "target amount" is reached. Fund-and-release commodifies creative work too much. It expects artists to withhold their creative process unless they're paid first. That's not what real artists do; it's what manufacturers do.
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
copying is not theft
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft
On the post: Apple & Audiobook Firms Insist On DRM
I had the same problem with iTunes
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Creator Endorsed Mark
http://questioncopyright.org/creator_endorsed
On the post: Dismissing The Freeloading Myth
"If you don't want me to read your book, don't write it."
On the post: Dismissing The Freeloading Myth
another Freeloading myth
"...free licensed works might make more on average, due to the elimination of middlemen and other friction....In other words...fat cats cost more than free riders." -- Terry Hancock (of Free Software magazine, who wrote that in a conversation on facebook)
Fat cats cost more than free riders. So true.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: As a fellow filmmaker, I think that's a travesty.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/23/how-to-make-55000-by-giving-away-your-work/tab/comment s/
no permalink, sorry (my correction is in the middle somewhere). Also sorry the journalist got some facts wrong; happens all the time, correcting everything is an uphill battle, but I do try. You may be surprised to know I don't write Wikipedia.
I am not trying to take away anyone's copyright. My official position on copyright is here:
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/03/18/my-official-position-on-copyright/
If you and other creators want to shoot yourself in the feet, more power to you. It only helps my work. If I were really selfish, I'd advocate for copyright, just like our good friends the Big Media companies do. Good luck, "fellow filmmaker" who apparently is doing so poorly it needs to stay anonymous.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
As a fellow filmmaker, I think that's a travesty.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
How'd it get up to $300,000?
On the post: Dear Peter Mandelson... Dan Bull Sings His Opposition To Kicking People Off The Internet
Love
On the post: Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing
cameras are copy machines
Maybe we could solve this copyright silliness by just declaring anything we make a copy of, is copyright us. That photo is ©Joe Photographer, until I make copies of it - then my copies are ©Me. That should make the copyright maximalists happy, and it would make me almost as happy as copyright abolition. "Your copies belong to you, and my copies belong to me." Copyright everything, or nothing; it all comes out the same.
On the post: Can Universities Make Sure That Drugs Based On Their Research Are Licensed Reasonably?
patent-left
On the post: ABA Journal's Patent Application To Score Interview With USPTO Boss David Kappos
Excellent
On the post: Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy
smart
On the post: Copyright Extension Moves To Japan
Re: Re: Boo!
http://questioncopyright.org/ideas_should_spread_freely
On the post: Company Trademarks The Pirate Bay Logo
there should be share-alike for trademark
On the post: MPAA/Sony Pictures Realizes That Shutting Down Muni-WiFi Over Single Download Was A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Information Should Not Be Free... Says InfoWorld Columnist That You Can Read For Free
Free vs. Libre & Gratuit
On the post: Star Wreck Filmmakers Experiment With Iron Sky
Worldwide rights are owned?
Can someone clarify what that means in this case? If worldwide distribution rights have been sold, how will the result be libre? "Distribution rights" means the right to sue anyone who distributes a work without the holder's permission.
Next >>